White House Sees $9 Trillion in Deficits Over Decade

[WildspitzE]

click click BANG... RIP USD. Everything else priced in USD continues to go up?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aSqYW9R78pQM

"The U.S. government’s long-term budget outlook is darker than expected, with projected deficits over the next 10 years totaling $2 trillion more than had been forecast, according to an Obama administration official.

A White House budget review set for release Aug. 25 will show cumulative deficits over the next decade amounting to $9 trillion, up from $7.1 trillion that the administration predicted in May, the official said on condition of anonymity because the figures haven’t been made public.

The administration revised the estimate after taking into account more up-to-date information about how the economy performed late last year, which affected its assumptions about the future, the official said.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated deficits between 2010 and 2019 will total $9.14 trillion."

[audrey_girl]

Re: White House Sees $9 Trillion in Deficits Over Decade

if anyone wants to cheat and skip ahead to the end, and see exactly how this all turns out, download this pdf version of a great book:

http://mises.org/books/inflationinfrance.pdf

you can also buy it cheap on amazon

the parallels in france circa 1780-90s with today are amazing........

oh - how it ends? ..... as it usually does throughout history - a "great" man on a white horse shows up whom the people adore as their savior - for he has all the easy answers and promises to save the people

later many millions die in purges, rebellions and horrible world wars

[rj1]

Re: White House Sees $9 Trillion in Deficits Over Decade

oh - how it ends? ..... as it usually does throughout history - a "great" man on a white horse shows up whom the people adore as their savior - for he has all the easy answers and promises to save the people

I think Obama qualifies as the stereotypical "man riding in on a white horse to save the day".

later many millions die in purges, rebellions and horrible world wars

Don't know who'd be purged unless Obama and the Democrats decide to enforce immigration laws tougher, maybe arguing that spending money on them means there's less money for the poorer constituencies that vote for Democrats.

Rebellions? Shouting and marches and throwing tantrums at town hall meetings have never solved anything. The only rebellions I care about are ones of actual worth. At the election box, we have a stale entrenched two-party system that'll never change. Even if the Democrats do a bad job, what are the voters going to do in 2010 or 2012? They'll either return the Democrats or vote for the Republicans. Neither side has a clue what they're doing. Actual rebellions involving guns? That's harder to see, unless some state comes to the conclusion they're better off leaving the Union, and even that's going to be difficult.

Horrible world wars? Those'll always happen, regardless of who is in power or the economic circumstances of the moment.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: White House Sees $9 Trillion in Deficits Over Decade

I think Obama qualifies as the stereotypical "man riding in on a white horse to save the day".

Obama is a pretender, a front for the same old corrupt powers that still rule.

IDon't know who'd be purged unless Obama and the Democrats decide to enforce immigration laws tougher ...

A real leader will purge the powerful that control Washington, DC, across administrations. Most people in government leadership positions who have also held important positions at Goldman, JPMorgan, CIA, NSA, DIA, Blackwater, SAIC, CFR, ... would be dead, hiding, retired, imprisoned or deported.

Horrible world wars? Those'll always happen, regardless of who is in power or the economic circumstances of the moment.

We have had about two such wars in the history of human civilization.

[Ghent12]

Re: White House Sees $9 Trillion in Deficits Over Decade

We have had about two such wars in the history of human civilization.

I thought the number was closer to seven world wars, if you use the reasonable metric that the nations must be fighting on multiple continents.

I don't think there will be any savior in a white horse. I think incompetence will reign, and we will perpetually have lawyers or political heirs/heiresses in the halls of power. The only group, the Freedom Movement, that could ideologically "fill the gap" will never gain enough power, as they hate everyone else almost as much as they hate their own. I guess you could say I'm a doomer.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: White House Sees $9 Trillion in Deficits Over Decade

I thought the number was closer to seven world wars, if you use the reasonable metric that the nations must be fighting on multiple continents.

If you use that metric, and if you count Asia, Europe and Africa as separate continents, then we have had countless world wars for many thousands of years.

[Ghent12]

Re: White House Sees $9 Trillion in Deficits Over Decade

If you use that metric, and if you count Asia, Europe and Africa as separate continents, then we have had countless world wars for many thousands of years.

I'm not sure that we have the same idea of the metric. The metric would count the handful of wars between Britain and France that also involved their colonies in North America and elsewhere as world wars, but would not count, say, the Crusades, Alexander's trek across Asia, or the Mongol invasions, where it was just one continent invading another.

As for the level of devastation, that really depends on who gets devastated, and who writes the history books for it.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: White House Sees $9 Trillion in Deficits Over Decade

I'm not sure that we have the same idea of the metric.

I suspect my efforts to count wars have gone beyond what is useful to understand audrey_girl's "horrible world wars" phrase, so I will abandon this subthread.

[rjwjr]

Re: White House Sees $9 Trillion in Deficits Over Decade

At least we don't have long to wait to get our answer...

http://www.endoftheworld2012.net/

(Disclaimer: I'm not a believer, but I find the prediction interesting.)

[GeraldRiggs]

Re: White House Sees $9 Trillion in Deficits Over Decade

what we need in the USA is what Larry Flynt (Hustler) recommended. I can't believe he came up with it......but I agree.
A National consumer strike day where everyone in the US takes the day off from work, does not go out to eat or buy anything protesting the big bank bailouts and the general destruction of the country economically and morally thru corrupt politicians, organizations, and laws.
Let's go!!!!!!!!!

[rj1]

Re: White House Sees $9 Trillion in Deficits Over Decade

If you use that metric, and if you count Asia, Europe and Africa as separate continents, then we have had countless world wars for many thousands of years.

Exactly.

I think the real number of "world wars" which involved the relatively most powerful countries in the world at the time they occurred is something like 7 to 9.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_w...wide_conflicts

War of Spanish Succession 1701-1713
Seven Years' War 1756-1763
French Revolutionary Wars 1792-1802
Napoleonic Wars 1803-1815

And World War I and World War II obviously.

[rj1]

Re: White House Sees $9 Trillion in Deficits Over Decade

Obama is a pretender, a front for the same old corrupt powers that still rule.

Most men riding on white horses are. How he has been received though by the American public fits the stereotypical response to such men though. "He's here to save us!"

A real leader will purge the powerful that control Washington, DC, across administrations. Most people in government leadership positions who have also held important positions at Goldman, JPMorgan, CIA, NSA, DIA, Blackwater, SAIC, CFR, ... would be dead, hiding, retired, imprisoned or deported.

The only way that happens is one large civil war, which I don't want to happen.

You cannot on one hand say the powers that be should be removed and think that said powers will not fight to maintain their control. The CIA and Watergate is the perfect example. Watergate, one of the worst political scandals in this country's history, was instigated by Deep Throat, who we later learned was then-Associate Director Mark Felt. Felt was deeply displeased with Richard Nixon trying to remove power from and politicizing the CIA by giving the leadership role to an outsider instead of giving it to Felt who wanted to continue the J. Edgar Hoover model. So what did Felt do? He called on two green naive reporters investigating a hotel robbery at the Washington Post and led their investigation exactly where he wanted them to go: to the President of the United States. Watergate was a CIA-led coup.

A later version of this is Eliot Spitzer's prostitution scandal that forced him to resign. Let's say that whole thing never happened, do you think Spitzer would've been far more listened to by the public and political cognoscenti on all the banks and Wall Street and the public bailouts with no prostitution scandal and still Governor of New York?

And a Greek tragedist would've loved the whole symbolism of the New York financial center being on the brink of crisis, their enemy that would stand in the way of what they want gets eliminated, and their enemy's replacement is literally blind.

I don't think there is a politician out there that has not only the will and the balls to go after all those people you listed but can also get elected. So the only remaining mechanism is a gun, which I'd rather not happen.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: White House Sees $9 Trillion in Deficits Over Decade

You cannot on one hand say the powers that be should be removed and think that said powers will not fight to maintain their control.

Agreed. The powers that be will not go gently into the night.

[jk]

Re: White House Sees $9 Trillion in Deficits Over Decade

returning to the subject of the thread [if anyone is interested in that]

---

August 23, 2009, 5:54 pm How big is $9 trillion?

There’s been some hysteria about the administration’s new estimate that the cumulative deficit will be $9 trillion over the next decade. Don’t get me wrong: this is bad. But it’s being treated as an inconceivable sum, far beyond anything that could possibly be handled. And it isn’t.
What you have to bear in mind is that the economy — and hence the federal tax base — is enormous, too. Right now GDP is around $14 trillion. If economic growth averages 2.5% a year, which has been the norm, and inflation is 2% a year, which is the target (and which the bond market seems to believe), GDP will be around $22 trillion a decade from now. So we’re talking about adding debt that’s equal to around 40% of GDP.
Right now, federal debt is about 50% of GDP. So even if we do run these deficits, federal debt as a share of GDP will be substantially less than it was at the end of World War II. It will also be substantially less than, say, debt in several European countries in the mid to late 1990s. (There are some technical issues in comparing these various numbers — gross debt versus net (mainly about Social Security) and overall government debt versus federal, but they don’t change the basic picture.)
Again, the debt outlook is bad. But we’re not looking at something inconceivable, impossible to deal with; we’re looking at debt levels that a number of advanced countries, the US included, have had in the past, and dealt with.


http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/200...is-9-trillion/

[WildspitzE]

Re: White House Sees $9 Trillion in Deficits Over Decade

Gotta love the nonchalant back of the envelope attitude/approach. Let's gloss over all of the qualitative differences, cause all of you are stupid anyway.